Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
  

Archive 2012 · Sigma 150-500 vs Sigma 50-500

  
 
tanglefoot47
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Sigma 150-500 vs Sigma 50-500


100-400 all the way, another note the 120-300 is a beast


Oct 02, 2012 at 09:24 AM
amnya
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Sigma 150-500 vs Sigma 50-500


tanglefoot47 wrote:
100-400 all the way, another note the 120-300 is a beast


Yeah, but 120-300 is almost double the price of the 100-400, which puts it out of option.



Oct 02, 2012 at 09:45 AM
GC5
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Sigma 150-500 vs Sigma 50-500


The 150-500 isn't bad, but the 100-400 is a wee bit sharper and packs smaller.


Oct 02, 2012 at 10:07 AM
Will Patterson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Sigma 150-500 vs Sigma 50-500


I rented the 50-500 and while the range is fantastic, I wasn't too impressed with sharpness. I was using it on my 1D X. It also had problems nailing focus during fast movement such as the car race I was using it at. When it did happen to nail it, sharpness was decent, but not to my liking. I was considering buying one for the price and range it offers, but not after the rental I used. Kind of a bummer.


Oct 02, 2012 at 10:12 AM
tanglefoot47
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Sigma 150-500 vs Sigma 50-500


amnya wrote:
Yeah, but 120-300 is almost double the price of the 100-400, which puts it out of option.


Yes ago I bought a used 120-300 from a camera shop it was nice but had issues with my Nikon so I returned it. It's big and I would miss the extra 100mm but I would love to try the new one with OS but it's also out of my price range



Oct 02, 2012 at 10:19 AM
Gehjl
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Sigma 150-500 vs Sigma 50-500


On a different comparison, what would be sharper at the long end? Canon 400mm prime with 1.4x or Sigma 150-500? Going to an Airshow and since I recently switch to full frame, my 400mm no longer has the same "reach".


Oct 02, 2012 at 10:21 AM
fraga
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Sigma 150-500 vs Sigma 50-500


Gehjl, keep in mind you will lose AF with the 400mm prime (I assume you are referring to the f5.6 version) unless you tape the pins of the 1.4x tc (or use a non-reporting one) or if you use a Series 1 camera, excluding the current 1Dx.


Oct 02, 2012 at 11:44 AM
Gehjl
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Sigma 150-500 vs Sigma 50-500


fraga wrote:
Gehjl, keep in mind you will lose AF with the 400mm prime (I assume you are referring to the f5.6 version) unless you tape the pins of the 1.4x tc (or use a non-reporting one) or if you use a Series 1 camera, excluding the current 1Dx.


It's a non reporting one. I've used it on a 50D before with pretty acceptable results, just curious which would be better.



Oct 02, 2012 at 01:19 PM
amnya
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Sigma 150-500 vs Sigma 50-500


fraga wrote:
Gehjl, keep in mind you will lose AF with the 400mm prime (I assume you are referring to the f5.6 version) unless you tape the pins of the 1.4x tc (or use a non-reporting one) or if you use a Series 1 camera, excluding the current 1Dx.


Gents, the 400mm you are referring to above is the Canon 100-400? Or is it something else? And why would he lose the AF if he uses the lens you are talking about?



Oct 02, 2012 at 02:50 PM
fraga
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Sigma 150-500 vs Sigma 50-500


The 400 we are referring to is the canon 400mm f5.6 prime lens:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-5.6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx



Oct 02, 2012 at 02:54 PM
fraga
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Sigma 150-500 vs Sigma 50-500


amnya wrote:
And why would he lose the AF if he uses the lens you are talking about?


Canon cameras only focus down to f5.6.
They will not focus with a slower aperture (bigger number).
The exceptions are series 1 cameras that focus down to f8 (excluding the current one, 1Dx, that only focuses down to f5.6 like all the others) and third-party f6.3 cameras like the sigma lenses you mentioned that fool the camera by reporting to the camera as being 5.6.

If you take a f5.6 lens and add a 1.4x tc you will loose one stop of light. The combo will become f8, that is to say, the equivalent of using a f8 lens.
If you use a 2.0x tc you loose two stops of light: a f2.8 lens becomes the equivalent of a f.5.6 and a f4 becomes f8.

The way to work around this (achieve AF with a non series 1 camera at f8) is to use a non-reporting TC or to tape the pins of a reporting TC, so the camera does not know of the existence of the TC and therefor tries to AF.

Keep in mind that AF with a f8 combo on a non series 1 camera will result in poor performing AF.
You will need good light.



Oct 02, 2012 at 03:03 PM
Ian.Dobinson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Sigma 150-500 vs Sigma 50-500


Gehjl wrote:
On a different comparison, what would be sharper at the long end? Canon 400mm prime with 1.4x or Sigma 150-500? Going to an Airshow and since I recently switch to full frame, my 400mm no longer has the same "reach".


Keep in mind that the sigma's are short of 500mm in real terms. at normal shooting distnaces its been reported that they could be a short as 460 . im not sure they are even 500 @ infinity.
so the prime and TC will be noticeably longer @ 560mm (a prime will normally be very close to its stated mm).

as for a non reporting TC on your 50D. well Ive used the 100-400 with a tapped TC (kenko) on my 40D & 7D .
the 40D doesnt mind the combo as much as the 7D . it generally will focus quite well as long as there is enough contrast and light. the 7D on the otherhand is a bit more temperamental . it wont AF on the middle point @f8 . all other points are fine but I did find it a bit more hunty .

that said you may find 400mm and crop to be the better option.



Oct 02, 2012 at 03:21 PM
tonywong88
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Sigma 150-500 vs Sigma 50-500


I found the 50-500OS the sharpest of the 150-500OS, 100-400L and 50-500 (non OS). The 120-300 OS is even better but that's another price point. Have all of the above. Best zoom is 300-800 but my spine doesn't agree with that assessment.


Oct 02, 2012 at 05:40 PM
Shutterbug2006
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Sigma 150-500 vs Sigma 50-500


amnya wrote:
To add some spice to this discussion, would the "Canon EF 2.0X III Telephoto Extender" be a good companion with the 100-400?


I love my 100-400 and use it with a 1.4 II extender 25% of the time and I'm happy with the results.




Oct 02, 2012 at 06:38 PM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Sigma 150-500 vs Sigma 50-500


100-400L + 1.4x TC is a great combo if you have a 1 series at least; viable for bif's, great IQ.
It would be damn nice if Canon offered a 100/125-500 f/5.6L IS as 400mm is not long enough even on 7D for birding most times. A 500 f/5.6 with the ability to get 700 f/8 for use on 1 series would be brilliant for fairly lightweight combo.



Oct 02, 2012 at 06:48 PM
amnya
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Sigma 150-500 vs Sigma 50-500


Why don't you use a 2x TC then? And why are you referring to v1? Why not go with the Canon 1.4x EF Extender III? Or is it that you have not tried it?


Oct 03, 2012 at 01:19 AM
fraga
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Sigma 150-500 vs Sigma 50-500


Because with a 2x tc on a 100-400L you will be at f11.
2x tc equals two stop of light loss. f5.6 down to f11
No AF and very noticeable drop in IQ.
Even if you tape the pins, the AF performance will be very, very poor and the IQ I'm sure will be pretty bad.

2x tc were made for prime lenses.
And even those, not all take it all that well.

The exception seems to be that some claim to get acceptable results from the 70-200 2.8IS vII, but that is freak of a lens...
Itīs on a league of it's own.



Oct 03, 2012 at 06:00 AM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Sigma 150-500 vs Sigma 50-500


Conicidentally, I bought a Sigma EX 120-300/23.8 OS last night. $1795 CA in [E+] condition! It could arrive by Friday or early next week. I'm getting it to replace the EF 300/2.8L IS that I sold earlier this year. It's a bit heavier and longer than the 300mm, but it has greater flexibility, and it cost less than half of a used 300/2.8L IS in similar condition. I'll be very interested to see how it does with my Mk III Extenders. It could be a good solution for travel when the 500/4L IS is too big. OTOH, it's not much lighter than the 500mm, about 0.9 kg. I still intend to get another Canon 300/2.8L IS (probably v.1), but this will hold me for a while.

As for the original question; I think the Canon 100-400L would be a great solution. It's relatively compact and the IQ is extremely "usable" at all focal lengths. It's a relatively old "L" lens, but it still works great!

P.S. Pre-1DX D-series cameras focus to f/8.



Oct 03, 2012 at 06:33 AM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · Sigma 150-500 vs Sigma 50-500


fraga wrote:
...The exception seems to be that some claim to get acceptable results from the 70-200 2.8IS vII, but that is freak of a lens...
Itīs on a league of it's own.


Yes, it's an awesome lens. I used the 70-200 Mk II + 2x Mk III quite a bit this summer. I took the Mk II to Utah for a month instead of my 100-400L, because I was also shooting indoor events, and the f/2.8 is a definite plus. Anyway, based on my experience, I think the 100-400L is a tad sharper, but I haven't used them at 400mm at the same time, on the same subject. I'm doing some lens tests today with my new 24-70/2.8L II. Maybe I'll throw the teles in, too.



Oct 03, 2012 at 06:40 AM
eosfun
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · Sigma 150-500 vs Sigma 50-500


If you really need 500mm and you van live with the low speed, the Sigma APO 50-500mm is the way to go. The 150-500 isn't very interesting, it adds OS, but what's the use of it if optical performance is so so. The 50-500 APO is a way better lens. Sharp, nice colours and a great MFD, which makes the lense very capable for close focus/semi-macro photography. The 100-400L from Canon has always been the greatest competitor for Sigma's 50-500, because of the additional IS. But the lack of the reach until 500 that Sigma's 50-500 offered was the trade off. A converter is not the best solution to get that extra reach. Optical performance goes down, AF is slower or disabled,and you lose another stop of speed, but for occasional applications this can be a workaround of course. So in the end in comes down to the question wether you really need the 500 reach. If so, go for the Sigma 50-500. It's a bit slow, it's big, but for everything else it's one of Sigma's best telezoom lenses IQ-wise in their portfolio. With Canon's 100-400L you can't go wrong either, but you'll have to live with a little less reach. Just forget about that 150-500, it's not worth it. Have EOSfun


Oct 03, 2012 at 06:49 AM
1      
2
       3       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.